SynthesisThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2024
The Fragility of Statistical Findings in Meniscus Repair Literature: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recurring low statistical robustness in orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review of 84 fragility index studies.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Within the realm of orthopedic literature, the determination of statistical significance for outcomes relies on probability analysis and the reporting of P-values. The aim of this study was to employ fragility analysis as a means of evaluating the resilience of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assess meniscus surgeries. It was hypothesized that dichotomous outcomes would be statistically fragile and comparable to other orthopedic specialties. Methods: Included in this study were RCTs reporting dichotomous measures pertaining to meniscus repair, sourced from 14 orthopedic journals indexed on PubMed between 2000 and 2022. The fragility index (FI) for each outcome was determined by iteratively reversing a single outcome event until the significance was reversed. To calculate the fragility quotient (FQ), the FI of each study was divided by its respective sample size. Additionally, the interquartile range (IQR) was calculated for both the FI and FQ. Results: Out of the 7,844 articles screened, a total of 17 RCTs with 112 dichotomous outcomes were included for analysis. The FI for all the outcomes was 7, with an IQR of 4 to 10. Similarly, the FQ was 0.067, with an IQR of 0.029 to 0.107. However, statistically significant outcomes had a FI and FQ of 4 (IQR 2 to 7) and .057 (IQR 0.03 to 0.108), respectively. The average number of patients lost to follow-up was 2 patients and 17.6% of studies reporting lost to follow up of 7 or greater. Conclusion: Recent findings suggest that the stability of the literature concerning meniscus repair may not be as robust as previously assumed. Consequently, we strongly advocate for the inclusion of the FI and FQ metrics, alongside the P-value, to enhance the interpretation of clinical findings presented in the meniscus repair literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39811170PMC11726474What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.